fleeing the centre: the rise of challenger parties in the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Fleeing the Centre:
The Rise of Challenger Parties in the Aftermath of the Euro Crisis
SARA B. HOBOLT
Sutherland Chair in European Institutions
European Institute
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
email: [email protected]
JAMES TILLEY
Professor of Politics
Department of Politics and International Relations
University of Oxford
Email: [email protected]
Paper prepared for presentation at the EES 2014 Conference, November 6-8, 2015, MZES,
University of Mannheim.
2
Abstract1
The Eurozone crisis has altered the party political landscape across Europe. The most visible
effect is the rise of challenger parties. The crisis not only caused economic hardship, but also
placed considerable fiscal constraints upon many national governments. Many voters have
reacted to this by turning their back on the traditional parties and opting instead for new, or
reinvigorated, challenger parties that reject the mainstream consensus of austerity and
European integration. This article argues that both sanctioning and selection mechanisms can
help to explain this flight from the centre to challenger parties. First, voters who were
economically adversely affected by the crisis punish mainstream parties by voting for
challenger parties. Second, the choice of specific challenger party is shaped by preferences on
three issues that directly flow from the Euro crisis: EU integration, austerity and immigration.
Analysing both aggregate-level and individual-level survey data from all 17 Western EU
member states, this article finds strong support for both propositions and shows how the crisis
has reshaped the nature of party competition in Europe.
1 The authors would like to thank Julian Hoerner for excellent research assistance and the European Research
Council (ERC-CoG-2014, EUDEMOS) for generous funding. We are also grateful for the insightful comments
from participants in the workshop on “Re-Thinking European Integration in the Shadow of Crisis: Politics,
Institutions and Governance”, organized by Brigid Laffan at the European University Institute, 2015.
3
‘There is No Alternative’ was the recurring refrain from many national governments during
the Eurozone crisis, referring to the necessity of austerity and structural reforms. The
consequences of the sovereign debt crisis that followed the global financial crisis of 2008
have been felt acutely in many European countries, whereas others were less severely
affected. Unemployment levels reached post-war highs in a number of countries, with youth
unemployment reaching over 20 per cent on average across the European Union (EU). Yet, in
most of Europe, the policy responses by the mainstream on both the left and right focused on
tackling debt rather than reducing unemployment. What is more, the external constraints on
national governments’ room to manoeuvre have never been more obvious, especially in the
countries facing a sovereign debt crisis. Governments of debtor states were asked to impose
severe spending cuts and structural reforms in return for bail-outs from the European Union
and the IMF. The emergency politics of the crisis dramatically limited the political choices
available to citizens (Scharpf 2011; Cramme and Hobolt 2014; Hobolt and Tilley 2014;
Laffan 2014).
Voters have reacted by rejecting the traditional parties and turning instead to challenger
parties that do not endorse the mainstream consensus. We define challenger parties are those
parties that do not ordinarily enter government. They are thus unconstrained by the
responsibilities of government and are often found on the political extremes (van der Wardt et
al. 2014). There are multiple examples of the success of challengers in the aftermath of the
Euro crisis. These include both the emergence of new successful challenger parties, such as
the Alternative for Germany, the Five Star Movement (Italy) and Podemos (Spain), the surge
in support for the established radical right parties across Northern Europe, and notably the
election of a radical leftwing Syriza-led government in Greece in 2015.
4
The question that this raises is why did certain voters defect from mainstream political parties
and opt for challenger parties in the aftermath of the crisis? We offer two explanations. The
first is rooted in the classic theory of retrospective voting, where voters punish incumbents
for poor economic performance. The expectation is that voters will “throw out the rascals” in
government when the economy performs poorly. However, given the perception that
mainstream parties, whether currently in government or not, were responsible for the
economic woes, we expect the sanctioning to extend beyond government parties to all
mainstream parties. We thus hypothesize that voters negatively affected by the crisis, e.g.
through job loss or reduced earnings, will punish mainstream parties and turn to challenger
parties instead.
This retrospective model of economic voting helps to explain the electoral punishment of
governing parties during the crisis, but it cannot be the full story. Not all challenger parties
offer the same solutions to the problem. Our second explanation thus focuses on the specific
appeal of different challenger parties. Our argument is that defectors choose challenger
parties because they offer a rejection of, and an alternative to, the mainstream response to the
crisis. Whereas the mainstream left and right have converged on a policy of austerity and an
adherence to the fiscal policy-making guidelines of the European Union, successful
challenger parties have sought to offer clear alternatives. On the left, challenger parties reject
the austerity agenda and are critical of the EU’s insistence of reduced government welfare
spending. On the right, the focus is on the desire to reclaim national sovereignty, specifically
to control immigration and repatriate powers from the EU. In both cases, challenger parties
reject the “there is no alternative” argument and instead claim that national governments can
control their own destiny and offer distinct policies.
5
To test these propositions we examine who defected from mainstream West European parties
after the onset of the crisis. First, we track the changes in the success of challenger parties
since the beginning of the crisis and show that there has been a sharp increase in support
across Western Europe after 2010. Then we use the 2014 European Election Study to see
what shapes people’s decisions to defect from the mainstream to challenger parties. We show
that retrospective economic voting matters: people who were personally adversely affected
by the crisis are more likely to defect. We also show that defectors are people that look
increasingly disconnected from mainstream party policy, not least regarding three issues that
are closely tied to the EU and the Euro crisis: EU integration, austerity measures and
immigration. We conclude by discussing whether the rise of challenger parties is likely to be
a temporary blip due to the crisis or a more permanent feature of West European politics.
Fleeing the centre
The financial crisis that erupted in late 2008 vividly demonstrated both the
interconnectedness of financial markets and the increasingly limited power of national
governments. As the financial turmoil travelled from the US to Europe, it evolved into a
sovereign debt crisis. By 2012, eight out of 28 EU member states had received some form of
financial bailout (Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Spain). In
return for these credit arrangements by the EU, jointly with the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the debtor countries had to engage in significant fiscal retrenchment and structural
reforms, mainly to social welfare programmes. The economic and social consequences of the
crisis within the EU have been far-reaching. High levels of unemployment and low levels of
growth are endemic. This situation is worst in debtor countries in Southern Europe, notably in
6
Greece, Spain and Portugal, where a quarter of the workforce were unable to find a job in
2014.2
The pressure on the EU to reduce unemployment has been only exacerbated by the
divergence in the economic performance of individual countries. Germany in 2013, for
instance, not only enjoyed a considerable current account surplus, but also the lowest level of
youth unemployment in the EU. The contrast with the reluctantly provided rescue credit to
debtor states under rigid ‘conditionalities’ formulated by the EU/IMF/ECB ‘Troika’ is stark
(Scharpf 2014). Looming over these unpopular decisions by certain national governments
were the constraints that European integration has imposed. Even in areas at the very heart of
state power, namely fiscal policy-making, national governments looked impotent (Laffan
2014). In 2012, for example, the Greek Prime Minister at the time Antonis Samaras, warned
that the country could be forced out of the Eurozone if parliament failed to approve a new
round of reform measures required by creditors: “We must save the country from catastrophe
... if we fail to stay in the euro nothing will make sense” (The Guardian, November 5th
2012).
When the radical left party Syriza was elected to power in 2015 on a promise to offer an
alternative path to austerity, other European leaders and Greek mainstream parties repeated
this message to Greece. In the words of Donald Tusk, the European Council president: “It is
not political blackmail when we repeat day after day that we are very close to the day when
the game is over” (Financial Times, June 26th
2015).
Unsurprisingly, there has been a political backlash. The most notable sign of this reaction has
been the rise of challenger parties; anti-establishment, populist parties that reject the
mainstream consensus. Challenger parties highlight issues such as European integration and
2 Source: Eurostat (seasonally adjusted figures from May 2014).
7
immigration that have often been downplayed by the mainstream, and foster new linkages
with voters that feel left behind by established parties (van der Wardt et al. 2014). We thus
distinguish between mainstream parties and challenger parties.
Mainstream parties are those parties that frequently alternate between government and
opposition. Their policy platforms are likely to be affected by both their past experience in
office and their desire to enter office again. In the eyes of voters, such parties find it difficult
to escape responsibility for prolonged crises, such as the Eurozone crisis. By their very
nature, mainstream parties, in opposition and in office, are also more cautious in mobilizing
around new issues or adopting positions far from other parties, since both would make it
more difficult to enter into coalition government (Tavits 2008; van der Wardt et al. 2014;
Hobolt and de Vries 2015).
By contrast, challenger parties are untarnished by office. While these parties are not
necessarily new, they have not formed part of government. Rather they have instead sought to
reshape the political landscape by putting new issues on the agenda (De Vries and Hobolt
2012).3 Successful challenger parties include Front National in France, Podemos in Spain,
and the Five Star Movement in Italy. Such parties have changed the nature of party
competition and restructured the political agenda, in most cases without ever setting foot in
3 Many of these challenger parties are so-called “niche parties” (parties that reject the traditional class-based
orientation of politics and raise new issues that do not coincide with existing lines of political division, see
Meguid 2008) or “populist parties” (parties that subscribe to a populist ideology that politics should be an
expression of the general will of the people, see Mudde 2007). However, in this article we focus specifically on
government experience as the distinguishing factor, since this affects whether such parties can be held to
account by voters and also their ability to challenge the mainstream policy consensus (van der Wardt et al.
2014). Table A2 in the Appendix lists all parties (in 2014) included in this category.
8
government. Indeed their appeal is partially based on the fact that they are not tainted by
holding office in the last few decades when the seeds of the crisis were sown. Moreover, their
lack of government experience and limited incentive, and opportunity, to join future
governments enables them to adopt more risky political platforms. This allows challenger
parties to offer a clear alternative narrative to the mainstream consensus. Challenger parties
on the left reject the notion that austerity politics is a necessary evil. On the right, challenger
parties argue that powers should be repatriated from the EU to national government and
parliaments, and that they can stem the threat of globalization (especially foreign immigrant
labour).
In this paper we examine the causes of the rise of these challenger parties, focusing on the
individual-level motivations of voters. Since the very notion of challenger parties assumes
that there is an established party system to defy, our empirical focus is West European
members of the EU that have established party systems.4 To illustrate the change that has
occurred since the onset of the crisis, Figure 1 plots the vote shares of mainstream and
challenger parties across the 17 West European members of the EU between 2004 and 2015.
We define three types of challenger party. All three types are parties that were not part of any
national-level government in the 30 years preceding the Euro crisis (1970-2010).5 We also
use the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) to distinguish between right-wing and left-wing
4 Although party systems and party competition are beginning to stabilize in Central and Eastern Europe, these
political systems are still characterized by high volatility which makes it difficult to clearly identify “mainstream
parties” (Bakke and Sitter 2005).
5 Any cut-off point in terms of government experience to determine when a party is, or is not, a challenger party
is somewhat arbitrary. However, this operationalization offers both parsimony and captures parties without any
recent government experience. Using a slightly different operationalization that looks at post-war participation
in government yields very similar results.
9
challenger parties (Bakker et al 2015), using the general left-right question in CHES: “Please
tick the box that best describes each party's overall ideology on a scale ranging from 0
(extreme left) to 10 (extreme right)”. Parties scoring more than 5 are classified as right-wing
and parties scoring less than 5 are classified as left-wing.6
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
The left-hand figure clearly demonstrates the decline in the vote shares of mainstream parties.
In 2004 mainstream parties on the left and right dominated West European party systems
with 86 per cent of the total vote share. This declined by 14 percentage points to 72 per cent
in 2015. Mainstream parties on the centre-left and on the centre-right saw similar falls in their
vote share, around 7 percentage points, over the 11 year period. In the right-hand figure, we
observe a corresponding increase in support for challenger parties on both the left and the
right, while green challenger parties have experienced less change. Overall challenger parties
have increased their vote share from around 10 to 23 per cent during the period.7 On the right,
these include the Finns Party in Finland, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden and the Danish
People’s Party in Denmark, whereas on the left these include the Red-Green Alliance in
Denmark, Syriza in Greece (although in government after the crisis) and Die Linke in
Germany.
6 For parties scoring 5, we classify them on the basis of coalition partners or their membership of European
Parliament political groups. Green parties are those parties whose ideology centres on the principles of green
politics and environmentalism. The full list of challenger and mainstream parties can be found in the Appendix.
7 Please note that not 100% of vote shares were allocated, since only parties with over 1% of the vote (or at least
one MP) were classified. This estimate of challenger parties is therefore conservative, since most of these very
small parties and candidates are likely to belong to the challenger party category.
10
Of course, different shades of populist politics have unsettled Europe long before the onset of
the sovereign debt crisis, as parties like the Front National in France, the Northern League in
Italy, or Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party in the Netherlands successfully exploited popular
anxieties about migration, globalization, Islam and European integration. Could the success
of challenger parties simply be a product of the secular decline of the mainstream left and
right parties, or what some have called the end of the “age of party democracy” (Mair 2013;
Dalton and Wattenberg 2000)? Our aggregate data suggests not, in that most of the change is
more recent. After all in 2004 only 10 per cent of voters supported challengers. Nonetheless
aggregate data cannot tell us whether the rise of challenger parties is linked to people’s
experiences during the crisis. To answer this question, we need to examine the motivations of
voters who defected from the mainstream to challenger parties over the last few years.
We argue this type of defection is, at least in part, determined by the economic crisis, and the
governmental response to the crisis. The choice to defect to a challenger party is about
sanctioning and selection (Banks and Sundaram, 1993; Fearon 1999). If we understand
elections as mechanisms for political accountability, then they must function as a sanctioning
device in which voters reward or punish incumbents on the basis of past performance (Key
1966; Fiorina 1981; Manin 1997; Powell 2000). This is the core intuition of the economic
voting model, which suggests that voters punish governments for bad economic performance
and reward them for good performance (Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier 2000; Nannestad and
Paldam 1994). In times of crisis, we would thus expect governments to be more likely to be
thrown out of office. Bartels’ (2013) aggregate level analysis of the “Great Recession” has
shown that this pattern holds. Citizens punished incumbent governments for slow economic
growth during the crisis. Yet, other studies have shown that in Southern Europe, heightened
11
perception of European Union economic responsibility reduced the magnitude of the national
economic vote coefficient (Lobo and Lewis-Beck 2012).
Most empirical studies of economic voting use either macro-level indicators of the economy
(e.g. unemployment and inflation) or survey data on people’s view of economic change as an
indicator of macro-economic performance (see Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier 2000, 2007 for
overviews). These studies have shown a strong relationship between the economy and
incumbent performance. There are, however, reasons why we may want to focus on people’s
direct experience with the crisis, rather than indicators of macro-economic change. First,
country-level studies using aggregate data make it difficult to disentangle the individual-level
motivations for defection. Second, although perceptions of the economy are normally highly
correlated with party choice, there is increasing concern that the direction of causality is
actually from party support to economic evaluations (Evans and Anderson 2006; Evans and
Pickup 2010). By focusing on personal experiences, and what is known as the pocketbook
model of economic voting, we circumvent many of these problems. There is also increasing
evidence that personal economic circumstances, such as declining wages, benefit cuts or
unemployment, are important determinants of voting behaviour (Bechtel and Hainmueller
2011; Margalit 2011; Richter 2006). In the context of the crisis, we expect that people who
experienced a deterioration in their personal financial situation, e.g. through job loss or
reduced income, will be more likely to defect from mainstream parties.
However, the pocketbook voting model does not in and of itself explain why voters turn to
challenger parties rather than to other mainstream parties in opposition. Voters do not see
elections as simply sanctioning devices, but also as opportunities to choose a political
representative with the right set of preferences and qualities (Besley, 2005; Fearon, 1999;
12
Herreros, 2006). This is about the prospective selection of specific parties, rather than
retrospective sanctioning of the government. Our argument is that the convergence among
mainstream parties during the crisis has led to defection to challenger parties from people
who are dissatisfied with that consensus. In the crisis, the most crucial aspects of the
mainstream consensus on how to respond to the crisis was based on a shared acceptance of
policies of austerity and fiscal responsibility as well as the acceptance of the discretionary
authority of the European Union (Scharpf 2014; White 2014). While challenger parties are
united in the fact that they offer an alternative to established mainstream policies, they differ
significantly in their focus. Challenger parties on the right focus on the loss of sovereignty to
the European Union and emphasize the repatriation of powers and restrictive immigration
policies, whereas parties on the left focus on the neoliberal character of the responses to the
crisis and oppose austerity politics, which undermine the national welfare state. We thus
expect that individuals who reject a pro-European mainstream consensus are more likely to
defect to challenger parties on the right, while those opposed to neo-liberal economics and
austerity are more likely to turn to challenger parties on the left. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H1: People who were adversely economically affected by the economic crisis were
more likely to defect from mainstream parties to challenger parties.
H2a: People who are Eurosceptic and more opposed to immigration are more likely to
defect from mainstream parties to a right wing challenger party.
H2b: People who strongly favour more economic redistribution are more likely to
defect from mainstream parties to a left wing challenger party.
13
Explaining defection from the mainstream
As Figure 1 showed challenger parties have become increasingly important components of
party systems across Western Europe. As they have become more electorally successful, so
have the fortunes of mainstream parties declined, and importantly much of this decline has
been in the aftermath of the crisis. Our analysis here focuses on the questions of why some
people have defected from mainstream parties, of left and right, and lent their support to these
various challenger parties. To do this we analyse the 2014 European Election Study, which is
ideally suited to examine individual level motivations for defection as it asks identical
questions of vote intention, vote recall, financial situation and policy preferences of
representative samples of voters all EU member states (Schmitt et al. 2015).8 We focus on
why certain individuals have switched support between parties over the electoral cycle in
different countries in Western Europe. Specifically we look at people that previously cast a
vote for a mainstream party in the last national election, but by 2014 supported a challenger
party. Before looking at the reasons behind defection, it is important to note how defection
from the mainstream has been crucial to challenger parties on both the left and right.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Table 1 shows how people in the seventeen Western European member states said they voted
in the previous national election and how they would choose to vote in June 2014 when they
were interviewed. It is noteworthy that the pattern of change that we see here matches the
8 Approximately 1,100 respondents were interviewed in each EU member country, totalling 30,064
respondents. Our analysis only focuses on the 17 West European member states. The EES 2014 was carried
out by TNS Opinion between the 30th
May and 27th
June 2014. All the interviews were carried out face to
face. More information can be found here: http://eeshomepage.net/voter-study-2014/, where the EES
questionnaire can also be found.
14
aggregate data shown in Figure 1. Both mainstream right and left parties have fewer people
supporting them in 2014 than they did in the previous national election. Who benefits from
these defections? Challenger left and challenger right parties benefit roughly equally. Both
increase their support by about half again, and challenger green parties also see a more
modest rise in vote share.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Table 2 shows more clearly the flow of voters. The figures are the percentages of current
supporters as a proportion of previous support. Loyal supporters, those who previously
supported a particular party type and continue to do so, are shown on the diagonal. That
means that 83 per cent of current mainstream right party supporters previously supported a
mainstream right party. 8 out of 10 supporters of both mainstream right and left parties are
loyalists. While there is some switching between left and right, overall to the benefit of the
left, and some mobilisation from previous non-voters, the overwhelming picture is of
stability. The makeup of challenger party support is very different to mainstream party
support. All three types of challenger party have barely half of supporters that are loyalists.
All three types of party pick up support from the mainstream, about a quarter of challenger
party supporters are defectors from the mainstream. Moreover these parties also mobilise
more non-voters than mainstream parties. Nearly a fifth of their supporters were previously
non-voters.
Almost half of support for challenger parties is due to defection from the mainstream or
mobilisation from non-voting. At the same time, that does not mean that defection is
necessarily that common. After all challenger parties still receive less than 30 per cent of the
15
vote overall and their vote share has gone up by only 9 percentage points. Not that many
people switch. For example most of the 4 per cent increase in right challenger party support is
due to 5 per cent of mainstream right supporters and 3 per cent of mainstream left party
supporters parties defecting to the challenger right. In total about 9 per cent of people who
voted previously and now express a vote intention switch from the mainstream to the
challengers (there are only 1 per cent that switch the other way). While that is not a huge
proportion of the electorate, it is a proportion that has transformed challenger parties from
insignificant to significant players. That raises the question of what makes those people
switch. Why has a tenth of the electorate turned their back on mainstream parties?
As discussed above there are two major drivers of electoral behaviour: sanctioning and
selection. Our argument is that both sanctioning on the basis of economic experiences
determines and selection on the basis of policy preferences determines whether people defect.
Our dependent variable is thus defection. We restrict our analysis to those individuals who
supported mainstream parties in the previous national election and we see what factors made
people more or less likely to defect, in terms of supporting a different party today, to
challenger parties.9
9 One issue is the coding of non-voters. We have excluded all people that refused to answer the previous vote
question (9 per cent of respondents) but included ‘don’t knows’ (2 per cent of respondents) as non-voters along
with the 23 per cent of people who stated that they did not vote previously. In terms of current party support, we
include anyone who did not give a party name as a non-voter. This necessarily includes people who answered
‘don’t know’, did not give an answer, and people who specifically said that they would not vote. In total this
includes 32 per cent of respondents. The only difference we make in terms of coding challenger party support is
to categorise support of very minor parties that fail to make the 1 per cent threshold that we applied to the
aggregate data. These have been categorised using CHES scores, coalition partners, membership of European
Parliament political groups or expert judgement.
16
To capture sanctioning and selection, we use two sets of independent variables. Economic
sanctioning is modelled by including a measure that captures how the crisis affected
individuals financially. This consists of two questions. The first asks whether the respondent,
or someone in their household, lost their job over the last two years. The second asks whether
the respondent’s household saw a decrease in income over the last two years. We add up the
number of adverse impacts, so people who said their income decreased and someone lost
their job score 2, people that just mention one adverse impact score 1 and people that mention
neither score zero. 48 per cent of people in the 17 Western European states score zero, 32 per
cent score 1 and 20 per cent score 2.
To capture selection based on policy preferences, we use a series of 11 point policy scales.
These concern the redistribution of wealth, raising taxes to spend more on public services,
restricting immigration, furthering European integration and the trade-off between
environmental protection and economic growth.10
We have recoded these so that the more
‘right-wing’ responses are higher numbers. This means that high scores indicate that a person
is against redistribution, against increasing taxes, against further European integration, and
favours economic growth over environmental protection.11
10
Respondents were asked on the extent to which they agreed/ disagreed with the following statements on an
11-point scale: ‘You are fully in favour of the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor’; ‘You are fully
in favour of raising taxes to increase public services’; ‘You are fully in favour of a restrictive policy on
immigration’, ‘The EU should have more authority over the EU Member States’ economic and budgetary
policies’; ‘Environmental protection should always take priority even at the cost of economic growth’.
11 We have also recoded ‘don’t know’ responses to the mid points of the scale (6) in order to maximise the
number of cases included in the models. Don’t knows make up 4-5 per cent of the responses, and including them
in this way makes no material difference to the results.
17
We include a number of demographic variables in the models: age, occupational social class,
religiosity, sex, education, citizenship and trade union membership.12
We also include
political interest as an important control when looking at switches to non-voting, this is
measured on a 1-4 scale from not interested to very interested. Finally, we include a series of
dummy variables for each country (fixed-effects) to control for country effects.
Table 3 shows the first two models that test hypothesis 1: does sanctioning happen and does it
affect all mainstream parties? Because the sanctioning model is focused on the punishment of
governments, we separate out those who previously voted for a mainstream party in
government from those who previously voted for a mainstream party outside government.
According to the classic model of economic voting, we would only expect it to affect
governing parties. However, if voters are sanctioning the mainstream consensus then we
should expect it to affect all mainstream parties. The two models presented here are thus
multinomial logit models which compare either 1) defection from mainstream governing
parties to challengers or non-voting or 2) defection from mainstream opposition parties to
challengers or non-voting. We group all challenger parties together.
Included in this model are the measures of the economic impact of the crisis on individuals,
political interest and demographic controls mentioned earlier, although we just show the
12
The occupational social class categories are self-employed, managerial, professional, white-collar worker,
skilled manual worker, unskilled manual worker, student, unemployed and out of the labour force. Education is
based on terminal age of education and consists of three categories: education finished before 16, education
finished before 19, education finished at 20 or over. Religiosity is measured using church attendance divided
into four categories: weekly, monthly, yearly and never. Age is measured in years, trade union members are
distinguished from non-members and citizens are distinguished from non-citizens.
18
coefficients for economic impacts and political interest in the table. In the main, the effect of
any of the social characteristics is small, with the exception of age. Older people are
generally less likely to switch away from mainstream parties, no doubt because they have
stronger partisan loyalties built up over many years (Tilley 2003).
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
A clear story emerges from these results. People who defected from mainstream parties to
challengers are those disproportionately affected by negative economic factors in their own
lives. Crucially this is true whether the mainstream party they previously voted for is
currently in government or not. People are not simply punishing governing parties, they are
voting against mainstream parties as a whole. In fact, people in poor economic circumstances
are actually more likely to defect to challengers from mainstream parties outside government
than from mainstream parties within government. Hence, in line with our first hypothesis we
find that those who experience economic hardship during the crisis are more likely to turn
their backs on all mainstream parties. Figure 2 shows the rates of defection from mainstream
parties in government and in opposition for people who experienced no negative economic
effects compared to those in households that experienced both unemployment and declining
income. Positive numbers indicate that parties gain more voters from people negatively
affected by the crisis.
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
The left hand figure shows how defection rates differ by economic circumstance for people
who previously supported a governing party. There is clearly an effect of poor economic
19
circumstances on defection to mainstream opposition parties, they get more defectors from
those severely affected by the crisis. But so do challenger parties. In fact the effect on
defection to challengers is greater. More importantly though, the right hand figure shows
defection from mainstream opposition parties given different economic experiences. In
contrast to classic economic voting models, we find that adverse experiences generate more
defection to challengers from people who previously voted for mainstream opposition parties
even though those mainstream parties are not in government. These are fairly sizable effects
as well. The average defection rate from both mainstream governing and opposition parties to
challengers is about 25 per cent (given the specific type of person described in the figures).
Moving from good to poor economic experiences thus makes a substantial difference to the
possibility of defection.
Hence, there is evidence of economic sanctioning, but on what basis do voters decide which
party to select? Table 4 shows the coefficients from a multinomial logit model that predict
defection from mainstream parties (both in government and in opposition) to the three
different types of challenger party and also to non-voting. It is first worth noting that all four
types of defector are more likely to have directly experienced economic problems.
Interestingly, the question of which specific party they defected to is not affected by the
impact of the economic crisis; the size of the economic effect is rather similar across all four
types of defector. How do we explain which specific party these defectors turn to?
In line with our second set of hypotheses, table 4 shows that there is significant variation in
the ideological profile of defectors to different parties. People who left the mainstream to join
the challenger right parties are much more anti-immigration and anti-EU than mainstream
loyalists, but they differ very little in terms of their views on the environment and
20
redistribution, and are only very slightly more in favour of restricting government spending.
Defectors to the challenger left are a little more anti-EU and a little more pro-environment
and immigration than mainstream party loyalists, but these are not big differences. The big
difference between loyalists and defectors to the challenger left is attitudes towards
redistribution. Those in favour of greater redistribution are much more likely to defect to
challenger left parties. This is also the case for challenger green parties, but unsurprisingly
the best policy predictor is support for environmental protection. Finally the best predictor of
people that become non-voters is not ideology, but political interest. While political interest
appears to have little effect on defection from mainstream to challenger parties, it is the
politically uninterested that leave mainstream parties and exit the system altogether.13
FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE
These effects are not trivial. Figure 3 shows how a two standard deviation move (from a
position of one standard deviation below the mean to one standard deviation above the mean)
on the three most important policy scales affects rates of defection. These are clearly
substantial effects given the relative rarity of defection. Challenger right parties get
substantially more defectors from those who are opposed to EU integration and immigration,
and challenger left parties get substantially more defectors from those in favour of
redistribution. Mainstream parties hang on to supporters who are more in tune with the
mainstream party consensus on EU integration, immigration and redistribution. It is rejection
13
Table A1 in the appendix shows similar models that look at mobilisation from non-voting to voting for the
different party types. The results here echo, albeit more weakly, the same processes that we see for defection
from mainstream parties. Moreover, as we might expect mobilised voters are more politically interested than
those that stay non-voters, but there are no real differences in how political interest affects mobilisation to
different types of party.
21
of this mainstream consensus, in any of its forms, that motivates people to leave the embrace
of mainstream parties, but the policy area that is being rejected is a crucial predictor of which
challenger party will benefit from that defection.
Conclusion
Challenger parties are the political success story of the aftermath of the Euro crisis. Both on
the left and the right it is parties that have never been in government, and often have very
little prospect of being in government, that have benefitted from the exodus of voters from
mainstream parties. The decline in the vote shares of mainstream parties since the onset of the
financial crisis in 2008 is around 12 percentage points. With the exception of Greece,
mainstream parties have remained the dominant actors in government in Western Europe, yet
those defections have nonetheless transformed challenger parties from often very marginal
political players to repositories of a substantial proportion of people’s votes.
Why has this happened? We have argued that the classic model of elections as mechanisms
for sanctioning and selection offers a helpful framework to understand defection from
mainstream to challenger parties. Starting with sanctioning, defection is clearly linked to the
economic crisis. People who were subject to declining economic fortunes due to the
economic crisis are more likely to desert mainstream parties, whether in government or
opposition. Voters are not simply reacting to the perceived failures of mainstream parties
however. They are also choosing challenger parties on the basis of policy. Challengers on the
right gain voters from the mainstream who disagree with the mainstream consensus on
immigration and EU integration. Challengers on the left gain voters from the mainstream who
disagree with the consensus on fiscal policy. Thus, both sanctioning and ideological selection
matter in how challenger parties convert mainstream party voters.
22
While the majority of people remain loyal to the mainstream, the increasing proportion of
voters that opt for challenger parties is likely to have a significant impact on party systems
and European democracy. First, voters are often attracted to challenger parties because of
their stances on issues such as European integration and immigration. The more Eurosceptic
position adopted by most challenger parties has put pressure on national governments and
made it more difficult to reach agreement on political issues, not least the recent
Mediterranean immigration crisis. Second, the success of challenger parties has influenced
the stability of governments. Since challenger parties tend to stay in opposition, the
formation, and maintenance, of stable coalitions has become more and more difficult. It has
also meant the rise of ‘grand coalition’ governments spanning left and right mainstream
parties, which have, ironically, strengthened the claims of challenger parties that all
mainstream parties offer the same policies.
This raises the question of whether the success of challenger parties is a fleeting phenomenon
that will dissipate as the economy improves, or whether it is the beginning of a new type of
party politics in Western Europe. The crisis, and the mainstream party response to it, has
facilitated the success of challenger parties, but it is not clear that the demand for such parties
will simply disappear as economic conditions improve. Voters are less partisan than they
were and more disillusioned with the established political class and this will continue to add
to the appeal of challenger parties. Nonetheless, much will depend on how parties, both
mainstream and challenger, respond to the changing political landscape. Some successful
challenger parties choose to eventually enter government. If such stints in office are more
than passing, these parties are likely to be held to account for the decisions and compromises
taken in office, and this is likely to diminish their appeal to many of their current supporters.
23
Such challenger parties may cease to be “challengers” and become part of the mainstream.
The example of the Tsipras-led government in Greece shows how government responsibility
can force challenger parties closer to the mainstream consensus. Equally, much of the appeal
of challenger parties during the crisis was that mainstream parties were perceived to offer
very similar positions on important issues relating to the economy, Europe and immigration.
Hence, the continued success of challenger parties will also depend on the policy choices
offered by the mainstream.
24
References
Banks, Jeffrey S. and Rangarajan K. Sundaram (1993). ‘Adverse Selectionand Moral Hazard
in a Repeated Elections Model.’ In William A Barnett, Melvin J. Hinich, and Norman J.
Schofield, eds., Political Economy: Institutions, Competition, and Representation, pp.
295–311. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bakke, Elisabeth and Nick Sitter. (2005). ‘Patterns of Stability: Party Competition and
Strategy in Central Europe Since 1989.’ Party Politics 11:243–263.
Bakker, Ryan, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan
Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, and Milada Vachudova. (2015). ‘2014 Chapel Hill Expert
Survey.’ Version 2015.1. Available on chesdata.eu. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Bartels, Larry (2013). ‘Ideology and Retrospection in Electoral Responses to the Great
Recession.’ In Mass Politics in Tough Times Opinions, Votes and Protest in the Great
Recession, eds. Larry Bartels and Nancy Bermeo. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bechtel, Michael and Jens Hainmueller (2011). ‘How Lasting Is Voter Gratitude? An
Analysis of the Short- and Long-Term Electoral Returns to Beneficial Policy.’
American Journal of Political Science 55(4): 851-867.
Besley, Timothy (2005) ‘Political Selection’. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19(3):43-60.
Cramme, Olaf and Sara B. Hobolt (eds) (2014). Democratic Politics in a European Union
under Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.) (2002) Parties without Partisans.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobolt, Sara and de Vries, Catherine E. (2012) ‘When dimensions collide: the electoral
success of issue entrepreneurs.’ European Union Politics, 13 (2). 246-26
Evans, Geoffrey and Mark Pickup. (2010). ‘Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political
Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000-2004 U.S. Presidential Election
Cycle’ Journal of Politics 72:1236–1251.
Evans, Geoffrey, and Robert Andersen. (2006). ‘The Political Conditioning of Economic
Perceptions: Evidence from the 1992–97 British Electoral Cycle.’ Journal of Politics
68:1 194–207.
Fearon, James D. (1999). ‘Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting
Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance’ in Adam Przeworski, Susan C.
25
Stokes and Bernard Manin (eds.) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Financial Times (2015). Merkel tells Tsipras no alternative to creditors’ offer, June 26, 2015.
Fiorina, Morris P. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Herreros, Francisco (2006). ‘Screening before Sanctioning: Elections and the Republican
Tradition.’ European Journal of Political Theory 5:415–435.
Hobolt, Sara B. and James Tilley (2014). Blaming Europe: Attribution of Responsibility in
the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobolt, Sara B. and Catherine de Vries (2015) ‘Issue Entrepreneurship and Multiparty
Competition’ Comparative Political Studies, 48(8): 1159-1185.
Key, V.O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate. New York: Vintage.
Laffan, B. (2014). ‘Testing Times: The Growing Primacy of Responsibility in the Euro
Area.’ West European Politics 37(2) 270-287.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Mary Stegmaier. (2007). Economic Models of Voting. In The
Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior (eds) Russell J. Dalton and Hans-Dieter
Klingemann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Mary Stegmaier (2000). ‘Economic Determinants of Electoral
Outcomes.’ Annual Review of Political Science 3: 183–219
Lobo, Marina Costa, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck (2012). ‘The integration hypothesis: How
the European Union shapes economic voting.’ Electoral Studies 31, 3, 522–528.
Mair, Peter (2013) Ruling the void. The hollowing out of Western democracies. London:
Verso.
Manin, Bernard. (1997). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Margalit, Yotam (2012). ‘Costly Jobs: Trade-Related Layoffs, Government Compensation,
and Voting in U.S. Elections.’ American Political Science Review 106(1): 166-188.
Meguid, Bonnie. (2008). Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral
Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mudde, Cas. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nannestad, Peter, and Martin Paldam. (1994). ‘The VP function: A survey of the literature on
vote and popularity functions after 25 years’. Public Choice 79(3): 213–45.
26
Powell, G. Bingham. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and
Proportional Visions. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Richter, Kaspar. (2006). ‘Wage Arrears and Economic Voting in Russia.’ American Political
Science Review 100(1):133–145.
Scharpf, Fritz (2011). Monetary Union, Fiscal Crisis and the Preemption of Democracy,
MPIfG Discussion papers, 11/11.
Scharpf, Fritz (2014) ‘Political Legitimaxy and in a Non-Optimal Currency Area’. In Sara
Hobolt and Olaf Cramme (eds.), Democratic Politics in a European Union under
Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmitt, Hermann, Sara B Hobolt, and Sebastian Popa (2015) European Parliament Election
Study 2014, Voter Study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version
1.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.5160
Tavits, Margit (2008). ‘The Role of Parties' Past Behavior in Coalition Formation.’ American
Political Science Review 102(4): 495-507.
The Guardian (2012). The eurocrisis live: Greece faces further delays as euro package
reaches parliament. November 5, 2012.
Tilley, James (2003). ‘Party identification in Britain: Does length of time in the electorate
affect strength of partisanship?’ British Journal of Political Science 33(2): 332-344.
van de Wardt, Marc, Catherine E. de Vries and Sara B. Hobolt (2014). ‘Exploiting the cracks:
wedge issues in multiparty competition.’ The Journal of Politics 76 (4), 986-999.
White, Jonathan (2014). ‘Politicising Europe: The Challenge of Executive Discretion’. In
Sara Hobolt and Olaf Cramme (eds.), Democratic Politics in a European Union under
Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27
Figure 1: Vote shares of different types of parties in Western Europe, 2004-2015
Note: These graphs show the mean vote share in national general elections holding vote share constant
between elections.
25
35
45
2000 2005 2010 2015
% v
ote
shar
e
Mainstream
right
Mainstream
left
0
5
10
2000 2005 2010 2015
% v
ote
shar
e
Challenger
left
Challenger
right
Challenger
green
28
Table 1: Percentage vote for different types of parties (2014)
Party type Previous vote Vote intention Change
Mainstream right 42% 36% -6%
Mainstream left 37% 33% -3%
Challenger right 8% 12% +4%
Challenger left 10% 14% +3%
Challenger green 4% 5% +1%
All
(N)
100%
11,424
100%
11,614
Note: Non-voters and people that said don’t know or refused to give their vote choice are not shown here.
Source: EES 2014
29
Table 2: Percentage vote for different types of parties as a percentage of previous party
type vote share (2014)
Party type intending to vote for
Mainstream
right
Mainstream
left
Challenger
right
Challenger
left
Challenger
green
None
% v
ote
sh
are
Mainstream right 83% 6% 18% 8% 9% 12%
Mainstream left 3% 78% 9% 14% 17% 9%
Challenger right 1% - 50% 2% 2% 2%
Challenger left - 1% 3% 56% 2% 2%
Challenger green - - 1% 3% 54% -
None 12% 13% 20% 18% 17% 74%
All
(N)
100%
4,110
100%
3,858
100%
1,385
100%
1,566
100%
569
100%
5,515
Note: Percentages less than 1% are not shown here. The ‘None’ category includes people who said they did not
vote, or were not intending to vote, people that didn’t know how they voted, or how they were intending
to vote, and people who refused to give a response to the question.
Source: EES 2014
30
Table 3: Multinomial logit model predicting defection from mainstream parties
Model 1
Defection from government mainstream
Model 2
Defection from opposition mainstream
Opposition Challenger Non-voter Government Challenger Non-voter
B B B B B B
Affected by crisis 0.30** 0.24** 0.15* -0.19 0.30** 0.10
Political interest -0.08 -0.07 -0.40** 0.13 0.00 -0.34**
Constant -2.62** -0.93* -0.60 -18.4 -2.59** -2.03**
Pseudo R-square
N
0.13
5,814
0.15
2,989
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01. Reference category for model 1 is vote intention for mainstream governing party,
reference category for model 2 is vote intention for mainstream opposition party. Only people who previously
voted for a mainstream government party are included in model 1, and only people who voted for a mainstream
opposition party are included in model 2. Other control variables are included in both models, but not shown
above. These are fixed effects for country, and individual level control variables of age, occupational social
class, religiosity, sex, education, citizenship and trade union membership.
Source: EES 2014
31
Figure 2: Changes in the predicted probability of defection/ loyalty for those who
experience two economic impacts compared to those who experience none
Note: These probabilities come from models 1 and 2 in table 3. They represent the difference between people
who score 2 on the economic impact scale and those who score 0 on the scale in the probability of defection/
loyalty. The predicted probabilities are for a Dutch man with a white collar job, low education, not in a trade
union with the mean age and mean political interest of someone who voted for a mainstream party in the last
national election.
Source: EES 2014
-5%
5%
15%
Previously voted for a mainstream party
in government
Challengers
Non-voting
Mainstream
opposition
-5%
5%
15%
Previously voted for a mainstream party
in opposition
Challengers
Non-voting Mainstream
government
32
Table 4: Multinomial logit model predicting defection from mainstream parties to
challenger parties and non-voting
Challenger right Challenger left Challenger green Non-voter
B B B B
Policy
position
(high scores
= against)
Immigration 0.16** -0.02 -0.08* 0.00
EU 0.14** 0.04 -0.07* 0.03*
Environment 0.01 -0.03 -0.24** -0.02
Redistribution 0.02 -0.18** -0.09* -0.01
Govt spending 0.07** -0.00 -0.06 0.02
Affected by crisis 0.18* 0.19* 0.21 0.11*
Political interest -0.11 0.04 -0.13 -0.36**
Constant -5.02** -2.74* -0.53 -1.47**
N=8,680. Pseudo R-square = 0.15
Note: *p<0.05 **p<0.01. Reference category is vote intention for mainstream party. Only people who
previously voted for a mainstream party are included in the model. Policy position is measured on a 0-10 scale
for each of the five policy areas. Other control variables are included in the model, but not shown above. These
are fixed effects for country, and individual level control variables of age, occupational social class, religiosity,
sex, education, citizenship and trade union membership.
Source: EES 2014
33
Figure 3: Changes in the predicted probability of defection/ loyalty when changing
policy position on the three policy scales
Note: These probabilities come from the model in table 4. They represent the difference between people who
score one standard deviation below the mean on the policy scale compared to those who score one standard
deviation above the mean on the policy scale. The predicted probabilities are for a Dutch man with a skilled
manual job, low education, not in a trade union with the mean age, mean political interest and mean policy
positions on the other four scales of someone who voted for a mainstream party in the last national election.
Source: EES 2014
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
In favour of redistribution compared to
against redistribution
Challenger
right
Challenger
left
Challenger
green
Non-voter
Mainstream
party
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
In favour of restrictive immigration
compared to less restrictive
Challenger
right
Challenger
left
Challenger
green
Non-voter
Mainstream
party
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
In favour of less EU integration
compared to more integration
Challenger
right
Challenger
left
Challenger
green
Non-voter
Mainstream
party
34
Appendix
Table A1: Multinomial logit model predicting mobilisation from non-voting to
mainstream party and challenger party voting
Challenger right Challenger left Challenger green Mainstream
B B B B
Policy
position
(high scores
= against)
Immigration 0.14** -0.03 -0.07* -0.03
EU 0.07* 0.03 -0.08 -0.02
Environment 0.00 -0.03 -0.14** 0.01
Redistribution 0.04 -0.12** -0.11* 0.01
Govt spending 0.05 -0.05 -0.04 0.00
Affected by crisis 0.25** 0.11 -0.09 -0.05
Political interest 0.42** 0.59** 0.67** 0.52**
Constant -5.29** -2.18** -1.03 -2.45**
N=4,054. Pseudo R-square = 0.15
Note: * p<0.1 **p<0.05. Reference category is vote intention for no party. Only people who previously did not
vote are included in the model. Other control variables are included in the model, but not shown above. These
are fixed effects for country, and individual level control variables of age, occupational social class, religiosity,
sex, education, citizenship and trade union membership.
Source: EES 2014
35
Table A2: Categorization of Parties
Austria
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Austrian People's
Party
Austrian Social
Democratic Party
Citizens' Forum
Austria
Pirate Party of
Austria
The Greens
Austrian Freedom
Party
NEOS - The New
Austria and Liberal
Forum
Alliance for the
Future of Austria
Liberal Forum
The Change
Belgium
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Christian
Democratic and
Flemish Party
Workers Party of
Belgium
New Flemish
Alliance
Green!
Open Flemish
Liberals and
Democrats
Socialist Party
Different
Flemish Interest
Reform Movement
Pirate Party ProDG
The Right People's Party People's Party
Francophone
Democratic
Federalists
Ecologists
Workers Party of
Belgium
Party for Freedom
and Progress
Cyprus
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Democratic
Coalition
Social Democrats'
Movement
National Popular
Front
Citizens' Alliance Ecological and
Environmental
Movement
(Cyprus Green
Party)
Democratic Party Progressive Party
of the Working
People
European Party
(Cyprus)
36
Germany
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Christian
Democratic Union
Social Democratic
Party
Alternative for
Germany
Pirates Human
Environmental
Animal Protection
Christian Social
Union
Alliance 90 / The
Greens
National
Democratic Party
of Germany
The Left
Free Democratic
Party
The Republicans
Ecological
Democratic Party
Party of Bible-
abiding Christians
Family Party of
Germany
Denmark
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Liberals Social Democratic
Party
Danish People's
Party
Red-Green Unity
List
Radical Party Socialist People's
Party
Liberal Alliance
Christian
Democrats
Conservative
People's Party
Greece
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
New Democracy Panhellenic
Socialist
Movement
Independent
Greeks
Coalition of the
Radical Left
Ecologist Greens
Popular Orthodox
Rally
Golden Dawn Democratic Left
The River (Greece) Communist Party
of Greece
Recreate Greece!
Spain
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Popular Party Spanish Socialist
Workers' Party
Convergence and
Union
United Left Initiative for
Catalonia Greens
Union, Progress Amaiur Equo
37
and Democracy
Basque Nationalist
Party
Catalan
Republican Left
Galician
Nationalist Bloc
Commitment /
Compromise for
Galicia
Canarian Coalition Galician Left
Alternative
Forum Asturias Citizens - Party of
the Citizenry
Future Yes Podemos (We
Can)
Citizens - Party of
the Citizenry
Commitment
Coalition
Voice Anova-Nationalist
Brotherhood
Democratic
Convergence of
Catalonia
New Left Catalan
Democratic Union
of Catalonia
Basque Country
Unite
Finland
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
National Coalition Finnish Social
Democrats
Finns Party Pirate Party of
Finland
Christian
Democrats in
Finland
Green Union Freedom Party -
Finland's Future
Communist Party
of Finland
Finnish Centre Left Wing Alliance
Swedish People's
Party
Communist
Workers' Party -
For Peace and
Socialism
For the Poor
France
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Union for a
Popular Movement
Socialist Party National Front Miscellaneous Left
New Centre Europe Ecology -
The Greens
Miscellaneous
Right
New Anticapitalist
Party
Arise the Republic Left Radical Party Workers' Struggle
Democratic
Movement
Left Front Alliance of
Regionalists,
Ecologists and
Progressives of
Overseas regions
and Peoples'
Solidarity
Centrist Alliance New Deal
Union of
Democrats and
Regionalists
38
Independents –
UDI + MoDem
Radical Party
Ireland
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Family of the Irish
(Fine Gael)
Labour Party Christian
Solidarity (CS)
Ourselves Alone
(Sinn Fein)
New Vision (Fis
Nua)
Soldiers of Destiny
(Fianna Fail)
Green Party Socialist Party
People Before
Profit Alliance
(PBP)
South Kerry
Independent
Alliance (SKIA)
Worker's Party
(WP)
United Left
Alliance
Non Party/People's
Convention (PC)
Italy
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
People of Freedom Democratic Party South Tyrol
People's Party
Left Ecology
Movement
Northern League Civil Revolution Civic Choice Five Star
Movement
Brothers of Italy -
National Centre-
right
List di Pietro Italy
of Values
Great South-
Movement for the
Autonomies
Union for
Christian and
Center Democrats
Go Italy
New Centre-Right
Populars for Italy
Luxembourg
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Democratic Party Christian Social
People's Party
Alternative
Democratic
Reform Party
Pirate Party of
Luxembourg
The Greens
Socialist Workers'
Party
Party for Full
Democracy
The Left
39
Communist Party
Malta
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Nationalist Party Labour Party Democratic
Alternative
The Netherlands
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
People's Party for
Freedom and
Democracy
Labour Party Party of Freedom Socialist Party Green Left
Christian
Democratic
Appeal
Democrats '66 Reformed Political
Party
Pirate Party of the
Netherlands
Christian Union 50Plus
Party for the
Animals
Coalition CU -
SGP
Portugal
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Social Democratic
Party
Socialist Party Popular
Monarchist Party
Unified
Democratic
Coalition
Party for Animals
and Nature
Social Democratic
Center-Popular
Party
Left Bloc
Earth Party Portuguese
Workers'
Communist
Party/Reorganized
Movement of the
Party of the
Proletariat
Coalition (Partido
Social Democrata
+ Centro
Democrático
Social/Partido
Popular) (Coal.
(PSD + CDS-PP))
Challenger Left
Party
Ecologist Party
40
'The Greens'
Partido Comunista
Português (PCP)
Sweden
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Moderate
Coalition Party
Social Democratic
Labour Party
Sweden Democrats Left Party Green Ecology
Party
Liberal People's
Party
Feminist Initiative
Centre Party Pirate Party
Christian
Democrats
United Kingdom
Mainstream
Right
Mainstream Left Challenger Party
Right
Challenger Party
Left
Challenger Party
Green
Conservative Party Labour Party United Kingdom
Independence
Party
Scottish National
Party
Green Party
Liberal Democrats British National
Party
Party of Wales
(Plaid Cymru)
Christian Party Socialist Labour
Party
English Democrats